Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the delete is a move to Trash, it carries sub-folders and notes as one recoverable unit, it is restorable for 30 days, and it permanently removes afterward. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and recoverability, then gives the important alternative and permissions. The final 'Required: id (integer)' sentence is redundant given the schema, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, recoverability window, permanence, alternative behavior, permissions, and required parameter. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single required id parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description repeats 'Required: id (integer)' but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the structured field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — moving a folder to Trash — and clarifies scope, contents, and recoverability. It distinguishes itself from containers-update's archived behavior and explicitly names containers-restore as the reversal path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use this for real deletion that leaves every listing, but use containers-update with archived: true to retire a folder while keeping it browsable in the Archive. It also states the editor-role requirement for team folders.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.